[tor-dev] v3 hidden services: inconsistencies between spec and implementation

[inkylatenoth]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 05:30:51PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
> That's a great post and thanks for catching all these issues and
> innacuracies! We are definitely interested in consistency and fixing the
> spec (and implementation if needed).

No problem! I'm glad you found my post helpful.

> > # rend-spec-v3.txt
> >
> > ## 2.4
> >
> > * after decrypting the `superencrypted' object from a descriptor, the
> >   resulting document does not end with the NL character. This means that
> >   it does not strictly conform to the document meta-format described in
> >   section 1.2 of dir-spec.txt.
> >
> 
> Hmm... This might be worth fixing on the implementation if possible (and
> if it won't break things). Otherwise, let's patch the spec.

I think it should be possible to fix this in the implementation without
breaking anything.

> > # 220-ecc-ids-keys.txt
> >
> > # 2.1
> >
> > * 'The signature is formed by signing the first N-64 bytes of the
> >   certificate prefixed with the string "Tor node signing key certificate
> >   v1".' I found this to be false; the signatures only validate without
> >   the string prefix.
> >
> 
> Ouch... I think we should edit the spec and consider if there are any
> security risks here.

I agree with all of your proposed solutions (spec vs implementation)
except for here, where I would be much more comfortable with an
implementation change. I realize it would be a breaking change, however,
and will understand if you decide to update the spec instead.

> Inkylatenoth, let me know if you are interested in drafting a spec/code
> patch for the issues you found!!! If you are not interested, I can try
> to do them myself at some point in the next weeks (been pretty busy with
> stuff lately).

At the moment I don't have the time to submit patches, sorry. If you
find the time yourself then I'd be pleased to review/test your patches
to confirm that they solve the inconsistencies I found.

> Also, let us know if your independent implementation is a public thing
> we should know about. Seems interesting :)

I'm not implementing the full protocol, but I certainly will do when
it's finished and open-sourced :)